Answer Exercise II Escape from Prison below;

Is the paragraph below limited to proving a single proposition or covering a single subjeCt? If not, what material is extraneous? Is the paragraph of appropriate size? If you believe it's too long, how should the problem be solved? Are the ideas expressed in a Sequence that enables you to understand the meaning of the paragraph without read- ing it twice? If not, what sequence would be better? Edit the paragraph in light of your answers to these questions. Add any thesis, topic, or transition sentences that you think are needed. (Each sentence is preceded by a letter in brackets so that you can refer to it in class without having to read the sentence aloud.) [A] A prisoner who leaves a prison without permission is guilty ofa crime of escape. [B] Until relatively recently, the defense of necessity was not available in California to a prisoner who claimed that prison conditions were so intolerable as to require escape. [C] An early case, for example, afrmed a conviction for escape, conceding that "if the facts were as stated by the defendant, he was subjected to brutal treatment of extreme atrocity\"in a "remote"mountain prison camp far from any authorities to whom he might complain. People v. Whipple, 100 Cal. App. 261, 266, 279 P.2d 1008, 1010 (2d Dist. 1929). [D] And a more recent case afrmed a conviction where the defendant offered evidence that other prisoners had threatened to kill him, and that prison guards had refused to protect him. People v. Richardson, 269 Cal. App. 2d 768, 75 Cal. Rptr. 597 (1st Dist. 1969). [E] Both Whipple and Richardson cited 1 Hale RC. 611 for the proposition that escape from prison can be excused only to avoid death as immediate as that threatened when the prison itself is engulfed in re. [F] But drawing on decisions from other jurisdictions, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District has held that, through a \"limited defense of necessity,\"a prisoner can defeat a prosecution for escape ifthe prisoner can demonstrate (1) that she or he was \"faced with a specic threat of death, forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future, "(2) that a complaint to the authorities would have been futile or not possible, (3) that the same was true regarding resort to the courts, (4) that the prisoner used no \"force or violence\" in escaping, and (5) that the prisoner surrendered to the authorities \"when he [had] attained a position of safety from the immediate threat.\" People v. Lovercamp, 43 Cal. App. 3d 823, 831-32, 118 Cal. Rptr. 110, 115 (4th Dist. 1974). [G] Even under this test, Victor Minskov does not have a defense to the charge of escape. [H] He had been beaten twice by a group of prisoners Who threatened to attack him as long as he remained in the same prison. [I] He Scaled the prison wall at 4 AM. immediately after the second beating and while being chased by the same group. [J] After the rst beating, he had complained to Prison guards, who laughed at him, and during the second beating hIS cries for help brought no response. [K] The courts would not have been able to protect him from such an assault, and he used no force or violence in escaping. [L] But after leaving the prison he hid under an assumed name for 16 months and was nall captured at the Los Angeles airport trying to leave the country. [M] Thus, he will not be able to show that he complied with the last element of the Lovercamp test by surrendering to the authorities upon attaining "a position of safety from the immediate threat.\